RickRussell_CA @ RickRussell_CA @lemmy.world

was RickRussellTX @ reddit

---

Read more

Posts

8

Comments

361

Joined

2 yr. ago

Things were clearly different after the vaccines, though. It's a much different disease to those who have been vaccinated and boosted.

License to kill -9

Maybe 8 to 10 days. My kid got it at school, a little more than a week later I was coughing. I tested positive on home tests for another 10 days or so, I remember because I had to cancel some Dr. appointments.

But I was very vaccinated and it really was no worse than a short cold.

"An entire data center" is 8 rented racks in two enterprise data centers (4 racks in each). They're paying $60K/month for racks, cooling, and location.

(facepalm)

IMO, I think the world is going to transition to using they/them for gender unspecified folks. I've been practicing using they/them in written and spoken communications, and it comes off a lot less strange than you'd think.

Subarus seem to be overwhelmingly made in Subaru's facilities in Gunma.

As far as I know, final assembly in the US and Canada is just finishing and installation of various options.

EDIT: Oh, it looks like their Indiana facility builds most of the units for the US market. Well, phbbt.

The claims against the Bidens haven't really evolved since Giuliani and Bobulinski made them in 2020.

Not sure what impact they expect these claims to have, again, more than 1 year before the next election. Whatever shot they are trying to take, it's going to be long forgotten by autumn 2024.

I'm just here to play some regulation softball

you’re saying it isn’t a big deal

Literally nobody said that. Nobody is trying to defend this guy. Suggesting that Roiland was "operating within the law" is a claim of the facts of the case, not a defense of the morality of his actions.

Morally or legally?

It turned you into a fruity vampire?

you’d like it better over there full-time

The passive-aggressive version of "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out".

Or... just let people live with their multiple personalities. It's not like people didn't have alt accounts on Reddit specifically so they could talk about stuff in a way that wouldn't reflect on their primary account.

As long as people behave appropriately on an instance, it's nobody else's business what they do on other instances with different accounts.

"Decline in overall quality" is a subjective metric, though. Does defederation reduce participation? Certainly.

But ya know, there's a reason people defederate certain instances -- usually because those instances have attracted people who are disruptive to discussion on other instances.

It's really been no problem at all for me to keep a foot in lemmy.world, kbin.social, lemmy.ml, and beehaw.org. And a few other instances that appeal to more niche audiences.

And if I really feel like discussion on an instance is offering something and I'm missing out, I can always get an account there.

Not that I'm arguing against better moderation tools, of course. By all means, lemmy devs should prioritize those as soon as scaling/stability issues are dealt with.

Not always. Sometimes it’s pivoting to whatever is making them the most money. Or eating their own dog food to prove their product, even if that product sucks.

Sure. The ability to pivot has a lot to do with whether the process is fundamental to the way they make money. The more fundamental it is (part of their "core competency", as Weird Al would say), the more likely they will have a "secret sauce" that they can't change (or even openly discuss until you are contracted, onboarded, and NDAed).

think they can just do it the same way they did it with State X and hope that State Y can just map terms

With respect, that's the same error that I'm accusing the article of making. You can't just tack on complex bespoke development on an open system and expect to get the results you want for cheap.

Have you even seen a government RFP? They tell you. Every. Single. Requirement.

Ehh... I respectfully disagree.

I work in the US, and I'd say that what you just said is true for a subset of well-specified federal contracts.

But at the state and local government level? It's not true at all. I've done requirements gathering at the state and local government level and it's like herding cats. The contract itself will have high-faluting language about "the contractor shall implement an information processing system to X, Y, and Z", but as for HOW you're going to X, Y, and Z, figuring that out all comes after the ink is dry on the contract. And there's no guarantee that X, Y, and Z actually make any sense in light of the data and capabilities that the state or local government actually has. That language came from legislation, or the mind of a high ranking bureaucrat, not any of the people who do the literal day-to-day work.

My point is accurately summarized within the article itself:

UC Berkeley Associate Professor Jovan Scott Lewis, who is on the IGS faculty advisory board and a member of the task force, said the poll’s question about cash payments misled respondents into thinking that reparations are “nothing more than a handout.” The question did not specify the task force’s basis for financial reimbursement, he argued in a statement to the Chronicle, and implied that payments were “for being Black in California and experiencing racism, as a generic condition of being Black.”

My point is, any brief statement on solving this controversial problem is going to be incomplete, at best. At worst, it's going to produce a biased negative response.

I mean... the headline is basically wrong. There are plenty of purpose-built tools for public administration, often configured and supported by the same big players (e.g. IBM). I've worked with several of them.

But I think the article hints at the real problem:

They are more complex, less well funded, more prone to change as democratic needs evolve

Governments have requirements, often legislative in origin, that making no fcking sense and that are incredibly tricky to model in software, because they're written by legislators who have a poor understanding of automation and how to write clear prose. And those requirements change with the stroke of a pen. Keeping up with them means the constant attention of a large team of software developers.

By contrast, most commercial enterprises can pivot to line their processes up with whatever the industry common practice is. Governments rarely have that freedom.

This statement seems incredibly naive to me:

Build an equivalent stack as a conceptual framework for local government needs and processes, and the things they all have in common will create a huge market for sustainable services despite no two organizations being the same.

The entire reason that governments go to companies like Oracle and SAP for help is that building, maintaining, and changing bespoke applications, and the full stacks to support bespoke applications, in a way that is compliant with government-grade change management is incredibly expensive. The entire selling point of tailoring a commercial ERP system is that it should nominally do a pretty good job of handling "the things they all have in common" at least as well as anything you build yourself. The projects still fail because accomodating the stuff that IS different ends up being a bespoke software project all of its own, and because things that appeared to be "in common" turn out to require bespoke configuration, because the government bean-counters didn't tell you about a bunch of the nitpicky requirements up front.

The prosaically simple explanation for these failures is that companies like Oracle over-promise, but they do that because almost ANY contractor has to over-promise and under-price to get a government contract.

Source: I work for a company like Oracle, and I work on projects for regional governments.

Everything is about details. Yeah, most voters (myself included) will probably disagree with any 1-sentence plan on what is certainly a controversial topic.

So build out a robust plan and let's start tweaking it. When I look for such plans, I see a lot of high-minded rhetoric about why we should do SOMETHING, but no specifics.

Our threats are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!